View Single Post
Old 06-04-2009, 08:19 PM
tonybones2112's Avatar
tonybones2112 tonybones2112 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 754

Originally Posted by chette777 View Post

I hope your reference to Acts 29 was just a typo as there is no Acts 29.

Interestingly enough at least you have divided the Baptism and limited to whom they were preaching the Jews. this may be the key as to why Paul never went into details to Gentiles about Baptism and it's purpose. the only thing he confronted was it was being used to cause division.

I do see that you are tying together of the Ministry of John the Baptist and the Priestly washing. however it is never said that that was part of his earthly ministry. As John told us plainly his ministry was to be the forerunner of Christ nothing more nothing less. His baptism as I see it was not for anointing the priests but if they had believed his message of the soon coming king and that the kingdom was at hand they were to be baptized as proof they believed his message. so they show their repentance by baptism and the result is remission of sins. Faith in the word John preached resulted in their work repentance and Baptismal obedience (works) which resulted in their sins being remitted (God's Grace).

And From what I understand from the scriptures is that it is the High Priest Job to anoint and wash the priests. Jesus will when he returns anoint Israel as a nation of priests. that doesn't take place until he establishes the Kingdom. John was in no way a high priest so he would be in violation of Exodus and Leviticus Rules and regulations. plus the Kingdom was not established so no need for the priest to be anointed until Christ is on the throne and then He as the Great High Priest will indeed do all that is required for the nation of Israel to fulfill its duty as a nation of priests. It is quite clear John was under Nazarite vow from Luke. anyone of the Nation of Israel could take this vow. But it would not make them a priest, nor give them the right to fulfill the role of one in anointing others for the priesthood.
Yes Chette, there is a 29th Chapter to Acts. Look in the mirror, the 29th chapter of Acts is us, those who practice Roman's-Philemon, the church that Paul built, not Peter.

What's clear is John the Baptist was a Levite of a Levite priest father and a mother who was of the daughters of Aaron, that he knew when where and why and what he was doing in baptizing in water and what his baptism was, and that the line from Levite to Levite could not be broken as the Scriptures can not be broken. John was more than a Nazarite recorded is Luke, John was sanctified a Nazarite in his mother's womb. John came as Consecrator, Jesus Christ came as Sanctifier, and it a private interpretation to say John did not have the authority to make either the High Priest or the kingdom of priests under Him, and I waqnt to see Scripture that John couldn't.

In all my messages on Jewish OT water baptism I've given the Scripture with Scripture in context tp prove it Chette. I've been given the Baptist and other denominational teachings on it, and am yet to see one single exposition on or one single Scripture verse on what the promise of Exodus 19 really was, and no Scripture to prove John, Jesus's disciples, Peter's, Philip's, Pauls' or any other water baptisms as practiced and received we "different" baptisms.

Rather than show me in rebuttal:

1. The meaning and fulfillment of Exodus 19
2. How common Jewish priest and high priest are really consecrated and sanctified.

...most all I get is the Campbellite technique of trying to completely disconnect the ministry of John the Baptist, Jesus Christ and His disciples, from the OT, to Israel, and then thrown over into being something for us. To speak in brother Greek Tim's language, I'm seeing the conflation of Classical Covenant theology over into practical, present day Pauline ecclesiology. The other response is to call me a cultist, a false teacher of false doctrine. If that's the case I can be removed from the forum if I'm Charles T. Russell or Joseph Smith.

Chette, you also missed the glaring and intentional doctrinal and Scriptural citation error I wrote into this message you are responding to which proves my messages are being gleaned, "read", but not STUDIED. There is no way I am going to be accurately or honestly "impeached" and "rebutted" without it. Henceforth any message in any thread on any topic by me is going to be shortened, it of no edification to me or any Christian who doesn't want to investigate a challenge to their denominational belief.

I've seen denominational private interpretation in opinion, I have not seen one single verse of Scripture that proves John was NOT performing the Levitical priestly function of consecration or that Jesus Christ was NOT performing His High Priestly function as sanctifier of the believing nation of Israel with the Holy Ghost, who the oil of sanctification pointed to. I've not seen one single verse of Scripture that says Gentiles are to receive water baptism for any reason or in any form. What I have seen in the other thread is the Campbellite attempt to make two baptisms into one baptism. I was born into and raised in COC, I know what I'm talking about.

Grace and peace brother, you'll get it if you study it through, you won;t see it in an instant.